Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
wc98 said:
in any other branch of science this would be the end of the hypothesis. https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.scienc...
thanks for sharing. Am enjoying this paper.Last night on BBC R4 'The Bottom Line' with Evan Davis had a round table discussion with three UK based renewable generator/supplier CEO's.
Mr. Davis asked for numbers upfront on generating costs - the umming and arring is quite amusing, followed by some less-than-straightforward reference to being 'competitive with new gas'.
It takes another 15 minutes before someone lets slip that 'competitive with new gas' is shorthand for 'we can't compete with existing generation' having extolled the virtues of their products.
One chap in particular is most upset with George Osborne for cutting his subsidies - just when they were on the cusp of producing such cheap leccy (and it's a 'super exciting time' for them with Apple ready to flood the World with electric cars apparently).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06z56m9
This morning Harrabin was bigging-up the new Morocco solar farm - no mention of costs/competitiveness etc.
Mr. Davis asked for numbers upfront on generating costs - the umming and arring is quite amusing, followed by some less-than-straightforward reference to being 'competitive with new gas'.
It takes another 15 minutes before someone lets slip that 'competitive with new gas' is shorthand for 'we can't compete with existing generation' having extolled the virtues of their products.
One chap in particular is most upset with George Osborne for cutting his subsidies - just when they were on the cusp of producing such cheap leccy (and it's a 'super exciting time' for them with Apple ready to flood the World with electric cars apparently).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06z56m9
This morning Harrabin was bigging-up the new Morocco solar farm - no mention of costs/competitiveness etc.
tomw2000 said:
wc98 said:
in any other branch of science this would be the end of the hypothesis. https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.scienc...
thanks for sharing. Am enjoying this paper.Mr GrimNasty said:
The linked article in the Independent (but not of open and obviously - does the Science editor actually get paid for including this stuff?) has at the time of writing 21 comments visible.I especially enjoyed the blue skies logic of this one.
"I just conducted a study of my own, my dog looked miserable so I gave it some chicken and it cheered up immediately, obviously that's just one data point so I waited until the dog looked miserable again and repeated the experiment, again the dog cheered up as soon as it saw the chicken.
I have concluded that global warming can be cured by chicken."
LongQ said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
The linked article in the Independent (but not of open and obviously - does the Science editor actually get paid for including this stuff?) has at the time of writing 21 comments visible.I especially enjoyed the blue skies logic of this one.
"I just conducted a study of my own, my dog looked miserable so I gave it some chicken and it cheered up immediately, obviously that's just one data point so I waited until the dog looked miserable again and repeated the experiment, again the dog cheered up as soon as it saw the chicken.
I have concluded that global warming can be cured by chicken."
LongQ said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
The linked article in the Independent (but not of open and obviously - does the Science editor actually get paid for including this stuff?) has at the time of writing 21 comments visible.I especially enjoyed the blue skies logic of this one.
"I just conducted a study of my own, my dog looked miserable so I gave it some chicken and it cheered up immediately, obviously that's just one data point so I waited until the dog looked miserable again and repeated the experiment, again the dog cheered up as soon as it saw the chicken.
I have concluded that global warming can be cured by chicken."
Just WTF are these people on to write such rubbish!
Scuffers said:
so what we all think of the current theory that these whales dying on our shores in the last 2 week being disorientated by wind turbines?
What evidence has been put forward, do 'we' know of any or is it speculation as per IPCC and the unobserved (nvchsigcd) tax gas warming?A former instance involving wind power, related but with a twist.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windp...
Scuffers said:
so what we all think of the current theory that these whales dying on our shores in the last 2 week being disorientated by wind turbines?
Doesn't matter. If a few thousand birds, a dozen whales and countless other wildlife dies in the pursuit of carbon freedom it's worth it.Gaia Akhbar!
There's no escape. Even a BBC-free diet doesn't help, having just watched a C5 news item about the whales. They were interviewing somebody indistinguishable from a sixth-former who blamed the whales' plight on climate change. Just dropped the cliché and ran, figuratively speaking. Nobody ever challenges it as a bland me-too evidence-lite soundbite.
turbobloke said:
There's no escape. Even a BBC-free diet doesn't help, having just watched a C5 news item about the whales. They were interviewing somebody indistinguishable from a sixth-former who blamed the whales' plight on climate change. Just dropped the cliché and ran, figuratively speaking. Nobody ever challenges it as a bland me-too evidence-lite soundbite.
Let's get real here. If they do not question and take them on their word the age of these '16 year olds and younger child' immigrants, despite having more facial hair than Brian Blessed, they certainly aren't going to question the stupidity of someone's comment on climate change.Age of Stupid.
Are whale strandings really that rare?
Might it be that the apparently large numbers involved recently are unusual but not unprecedented?
In recent times one might accept that the whaling industry of the 18th and 19th century could well have depleted local stock. Fewer critters, fewer strandings.
But presumably the anti-whaling movement of the last few decades will have had some effect and populations together with pod sizes are likely to have grown. So when a pod is larger and faces what they treat as a pod wide event the chances that number will be higher is likely to be self evident.
And if they act as a mammalian crowd usually does then the likelihood of following a group think pattern and acting in the same way will be high and with high numbers.
May I now refer you (cautiously) to this Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommon_Law
which reports on the writings of one A.P. Herbert, A name that may mean something to those of you of a certain age. Or older. These tales, originally published in Punch Magazine, mostly relate to the battles of one Mr. Haddock against the more unusual laws of the state.
In particular to the description of the piece entitled:
"Tinrib, Rumble, And Others v The King and Queen: Fish Royal"
Here is the synopsis.
"A dead whale is washed up on the shore of Pudding Magna in Dorset and a dispute ensues as to who is responsible for its disposal, which becomes increasingly urgent as the carcase has started to decompose, making the town unpleasant to live in.
It is contended according to precedent that the whale is "fish royal" and therefore the monarch is responsible; however, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food correctly points out that a whale is a mammal and therefore outside its jurisdiction. The appeal proceeds on the instructions of "the late residents of Pudding Magna", but is immediately adjourned."
These pieces were written in the 1920s and 1930s. Presumably whale beachings were not entirely unheard of in those times. Are they something new now?
Might it be that the apparently large numbers involved recently are unusual but not unprecedented?
In recent times one might accept that the whaling industry of the 18th and 19th century could well have depleted local stock. Fewer critters, fewer strandings.
But presumably the anti-whaling movement of the last few decades will have had some effect and populations together with pod sizes are likely to have grown. So when a pod is larger and faces what they treat as a pod wide event the chances that number will be higher is likely to be self evident.
And if they act as a mammalian crowd usually does then the likelihood of following a group think pattern and acting in the same way will be high and with high numbers.
May I now refer you (cautiously) to this Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommon_Law
which reports on the writings of one A.P. Herbert, A name that may mean something to those of you of a certain age. Or older. These tales, originally published in Punch Magazine, mostly relate to the battles of one Mr. Haddock against the more unusual laws of the state.
In particular to the description of the piece entitled:
"Tinrib, Rumble, And Others v The King and Queen: Fish Royal"
Here is the synopsis.
"A dead whale is washed up on the shore of Pudding Magna in Dorset and a dispute ensues as to who is responsible for its disposal, which becomes increasingly urgent as the carcase has started to decompose, making the town unpleasant to live in.
It is contended according to precedent that the whale is "fish royal" and therefore the monarch is responsible; however, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food correctly points out that a whale is a mammal and therefore outside its jurisdiction. The appeal proceeds on the instructions of "the late residents of Pudding Magna", but is immediately adjourned."
These pieces were written in the 1920s and 1930s. Presumably whale beachings were not entirely unheard of in those times. Are they something new now?
LongQ said:
Are whale strandings really that rare?
Might it be that the apparently large numbers involved recently are unusual but not unprecedented?
In recent times one might accept that the whaling industry of the 18th and 19th century could well have depleted local stock. Fewer critters, fewer strandings.
But presumably the anti-whaling movement of the last few decades will have had some effect and populations together with pod sizes are likely to have grown.
So when a pod is larger and faces what they treat as a pod wide event the chances that number will be higher is likely to be self evident.
And if they act as a mammalian crowd usually does then the likelihood of following a group think pattern and acting in the same way will be high and with high numbers.
Strandings of sperm whales in the North Sea are common apparently and have been documented since the end of the 16th century but with no clear temporal pattern in the occurrence - except that there were very few strandings between the late 18th and early 20th centuries, which has been associated with whaling. Any proposed link with either the supposed recent phenomenon of manmade global warming or its new nickname of climate change is risible. North Sea waters are too shallow for the whales and there's little food, most beached whales die with an empty stomach. Researchers speak of the North Sea as a whale trap and consider that many die offshore unnoticed. Might it be that the apparently large numbers involved recently are unusual but not unprecedented?
In recent times one might accept that the whaling industry of the 18th and 19th century could well have depleted local stock. Fewer critters, fewer strandings.
But presumably the anti-whaling movement of the last few decades will have had some effect and populations together with pod sizes are likely to have grown.
So when a pod is larger and faces what they treat as a pod wide event the chances that number will be higher is likely to be self evident.
And if they act as a mammalian crowd usually does then the likelihood of following a group think pattern and acting in the same way will be high and with high numbers.
wc98 said:
remember that science you were talking about ? if we are in agreement it should be based on observations vs the hypothesis i think it would do you well to read this. testimony to the house committee on science ,space and technology from dr john christy on the 2nd of february.
in any other branch of science this would be the end of the hypothesis. https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.scienc...
i particularly enjoy how he puts to bed the nonsense claims from mears regarding the veracity of satellite measurements of the atmosphere vs those of land based thermometers . the chart of lower troposphere measured temperatures (radiosondes and satellite) and the output of climate models for the same time period shows even greater divergence from each other than the land based measurements vs model output.
considering the very region of the atmosphere that is supposed to be affected the most according to the hypothesis is seeing little change , just how do you maintain your position ?
Lol at the science deniers, still sprouting utter garbagein any other branch of science this would be the end of the hypothesis. https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.scienc...
i particularly enjoy how he puts to bed the nonsense claims from mears regarding the veracity of satellite measurements of the atmosphere vs those of land based thermometers . the chart of lower troposphere measured temperatures (radiosondes and satellite) and the output of climate models for the same time period shows even greater divergence from each other than the land based measurements vs model output.
considering the very region of the atmosphere that is supposed to be affected the most according to the hypothesis is seeing little change , just how do you maintain your position ?
I made a prediction in early November last year that 2015 would be the hottest year on record – a no brainer really – and indeed it not only broke but smashed the previous record – which amazingly was 2014/10 which in turn beat 2005 – mmm some pause!!!
Anyway I also made the prediction that 2016 would be hotter still, as off Jan this year NOAA, NASA and the Met office agree with me
I am sure all the lurkers are wondering “how come”
Well the deniers only talk about the satellite datasets, and they only set a start date of 1998
They do this because as I showed in my posts last year – those are the only two data points that show a “pause”
And Ray Mears the satellite scientist who provides the data (who I linked to in my previous post) says so
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UyAOYoIifo&fe...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr6dSo6SrCE&fe...
Anyway, what will be interesting is to check what these science deniers do when the LTL temperature “anomaly” gets resolved – which I suspect it will do in the next year or two
I will be back a 6 months or so, but defiantly is a year – to see how my 2016 predictions pans out
The irony will be if it only ranks 2nd highest in the last 100 years, the deniers will still claim victory – but “that’s numberwang” as they say
Remember science is hard conspiracies are easy
Oh and as an aside – next time a science denier says satellite “take temperatures” – show them this graphic
that's the "model" that is used to arrive at a temperature reading
And be sure to read Ray Mears paper on temp uncertainties
http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_JGR_2...
oh an Ray Mears has been correcting the UAH data set for the last 20 years - here is his seminal paper from 2005 that's showed Christy/Spencer had been making basic errors for years (ther have been many other paper correcting Spencer /Christy)
http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Mears_Scien...
for the lurkers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_satellite_temper...
so believe the vast majority of experts in the field or you could believe a couple of creationist scientist (Christy / Spencer) who both signed the below
We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/01/evangel...
an interesting fact is that if you say "gullible" slooowly - it sound like "oranges"
its an older code said:
wc98 said:
remember that science you were talking about ? if we are in agreement it should be based on observations vs the hypothesis i think it would do you well to read this. testimony to the house committee on science ,space and technology from dr john christy on the 2nd of february.
in any other branch of science this would be the end of the hypothesis. https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.scienc...
i particularly enjoy how he puts to bed the nonsense claims from mears regarding the veracity of satellite measurements of the atmosphere vs those of land based thermometers . the chart of lower troposphere measured temperatures (radiosondes and satellite) and the output of climate models for the same time period shows even greater divergence from each other than the land based measurements vs model output.
considering the very region of the atmosphere that is supposed to be affected the most according to the hypothesis is seeing little change , just how do you maintain your position ?
Lol at the science deniers, still sprouting utter garbagein any other branch of science this would be the end of the hypothesis. https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.scienc...
i particularly enjoy how he puts to bed the nonsense claims from mears regarding the veracity of satellite measurements of the atmosphere vs those of land based thermometers . the chart of lower troposphere measured temperatures (radiosondes and satellite) and the output of climate models for the same time period shows even greater divergence from each other than the land based measurements vs model output.
considering the very region of the atmosphere that is supposed to be affected the most according to the hypothesis is seeing little change , just how do you maintain your position ?
its an older code said:
I made a prediction in early November last year that 2015 would be the hottest year on record – a no brainer really – and indeed it not only broke but smashed the previous record
Did you need a computer climate model for the prediction? It has all the symptoms, the main one being identification as gigo. The prediction failed. It was nowhere near - it looks like you've been swallowing information pollution from that scientist chap Obama.
As you're well informed on this topic there's no need to cite the origin since you'll have your own copy on file, under the heading 'ignore'
an older code said:
mmm some pause!!!
Sure is, you finally noticed 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff